Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------S. 115, O. XXXVII, rr. 2 & 3 & O. V, rr. 16, 17 & 18-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Finding of fact-Question with regard to date on which defendant was personally served Order of trial Court neither without jurisdiction nor trial Court committed any excess of jurisdiction-Judgment of trial Court revealing that apart from question of jurisdiction, decision on question of fact did not suffer from any illegality or any material irregularity which could be corrected under S. 115, C. P.C.-High Court's in revision not showing any justification for interference with finding of fact in its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C. P. C.-Mere fact that High, Court differed with trial Court with regard to appreciation of material before trial Court, namely, report and verification on oath of process-server, held, could not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- --- O. V, rr. 16, 17 & 18-Service of summons-Clarification as to an aspect of legal position. Where the process-server serves the summons on the defendant personally or to an agent or other person on behalf of the defendant, "he (process-server) shall require the signature of the person to whom . . . . an acknowledgement of service endorsed on the original summons". The language used in the rule shows as if it is mandatory; failing which the services would be treated as not effected: Prima facie this seems to be the position but with two important overriding conditions: (1) where the defendant agrees that he was in fact served but signatures were not obtained, is that situation absence of the signatures on the summons would not make any difference in an ordinary case. (2) Situations some times arise where despite the admission regarding service by the defendant he would be able to urge and show that he had been caused prejudice by the process-server not obtaining the signature. The failure of the process-server to obtain the signature of the defendant on whom he served the summons where-under he might have given the date of the receipt of the summons leads to an extraordinary and major controversy. Where…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492